(Dane Wigington) NASA tells us that the shockingly visible and very extensive “tracks” (or trails) being witnessed on satellite imagery over oceans (like the ones shown below) are ALL the result of pollution being produced by ships, which is in turn creating “clouds”.

Ship tracks have shown that clouds that form around man-made aerosols are brighter than other clouds. Man-made aerosols are smaller than natural particles, so the clouds that form around man-made aerosols are made up of smaller cloud droplets.

A cloud made of many smaller droplets reflects more light than a cloud made of few larger droplets, since the surface of each droplet reflects light.

The brighter clouds that result from man-made aerosols reflect more of the Sun’s light back into space, decreasing the amount of light that reaches the Earth’s surface.

This interaction of man-made aerosols with clouds has cooled the Earth, offsetting global warming, though scientists are still not sure by how much.

More accurate predictions of future warming depend on understanding how much cooling the brighter clouds provide… (NASA)

Is it rational to fully accept the “ship tracks” explanation from NASA as the ONLY source of the trails we so clearly see in the following images?

NASA, of course, does not in any way acknowledge the ongoing geoengineering / solar radiation management jet aircraft dispersions.

We must consider and remember that any method of delivering toxic particles into the atmosphere (ship despersions or jet aircraft despersions) are forms of climate engineering / intervention which are inflicting immense damage to the overall life support systems of the planet.

In reality, NASA is nothing more than a military industrial complex contractor for the power structure, deceiving the public has always been a major part of this agency’s mission.

Let’s consider NASA’s official position on geoengineering (or “chemtrails”), NASA, NOAA, NWS, and the USAF tell us the relentless bombardment of atmospheric particulate spraying in our skies is all just “contrails”.

Is this explanation in any way credible? If the design characteristics of the modern high bypass turbofan jet engine are taken into account, NASA’s official “just contrails” narrative can be seen for what it is, total deception.

Below is a satellite animation loop that clearly reveals numerous extremely long trails (some well over 500 miles in length) covering much of the Eastern Pacific off of the west coast of North America.

NASA tells us these are ALL just “ship tracks” from ship engine combustion exhaust created by standard commercial shipping vessels, but is this official explanation reasonable in all cases?

First, with the extreme volume of shipping traffic operating in the Eastern Pacific, why would only a select percentage of ships leave such long and blatantly visible “tracks”?

“Ship tracks” off of the North American west coast. (NASA)

Next, why would shipping companies (that are extremely cost conscious of the staggering amount of fuel their ships consume) allow their vessels to meander over the oceans in sometimes haphazard patterns and directions?

Why would a commercial ship plot a course along some of the “ship track” trajectories we see on satellite images?

(Wind movement / drift of “tracks” cannot account for many of the observed trail directional anomalies).

“Ship Tracks” over the Northern Pacific Ocean. (NASA)

The image below reflects marine shipping lane traffic:

The objective of shipping vessel traffic is to get from port to port by the
shortest most direct route possible as the graphic above clearly reflects.

The clustering and grid pattern like formations (of what we are officially told is just naturally occurring “ship tracks” due to combustion engine exhaust) should cause any objective and analytical individual to take pause regarding the official narrative on this phenomenon.

At this speed, some of the longest “tracks” we see in satellite images could take 2 to 3 days to lay out. Are we to believe that such long and uniform “tracks” would remain in tact for up to several days?

Especially if the source of the atmospheric particle dispersion occurred at sea level from the smoke stack of a slow moving ship?

Why would we believe the “ship tracks” hold a uniform shape for so long over distances of up to 500 or 600 miles or more?

Below is a shocking photo of what NASA would have us believe is just “condensation trails” from normal air traffic. Would any rational person accept such a blatant and glaring official lie?

Populations around the globe have so far, unfortunately, accepted the
“commercial air traffic condensation trail” official lie that is fed to them by
agencies and the vast majority of government sponsored academia.

The jet aircraft particulate dispersion trails in the photo above are similar in size and length to what NASA says are just “ship tracks” over the oceans.

Why wouldn’t any rational person conclude the obvious? Climate engineering has long since been fully deployed all over the world.

The climate scientist community (and corporate media) betrayal of the truth (for a paycheck and a pension) is a primary reason that the “condensation trail” lie persists and thus the public largely remains oblivious to the ongoing climate engineering operations.

_________________________Stillness in the Storm Editor’s note: Did you find a spelling error or grammar mistake? Do you think this article needs a correction or update? Or do you just have some feedback? Send us an email at [email protected] with the error, headline and url. Thank you for reading.

Stillness in the Storm DISCLAIMER: All statements, claims, views and opinions that appear anywhere on this site, whether stated as theories or absolute facts, are always presented by Stillness in the Storm as unverified—and should be personally fact checked and discerned by you, the reader. Any opinions or statements herein presented are not necessarily promoted, endorsed, or agreed to by Stillness, those who work with Stillness, or those who read Stillness. Any belief or conclusion gleaned from content on this site is solely the responsibility of you the reader to substantiate. And any actions taken by those who read material on this site is solely the responsibility of the acting party. You are encouraged to think carefully and do your own research. Nothing on this site is meant to be believed without question or personal appraisal.